Should we stop supporting them with our eyes for taking sponsorships from shady companies?

Edit: I took my first step and unsubscribed from the channel and I will continue to withhold my viewership to those that don’t take better care of the viewers.

Likely doesn’t matter, but I’m on a roll of not giving my money to companies that are immoral so why not do the same with my eyes.

    • Pirky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      5 months ago

      There was a video he did on a startup taxi service using self driving cars. Basically the entire thing was an advertisement for that company.
      Then another Youtuber, Tom Nicholas, released a video about that a few months later and how it’s an issue. I’ll have to watch it again as I don’t remember what he specifically talks about.

    • Kumikommunism [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      His video with one of those “genetic research” companies was very bad anti-privacy propaganda, where they used the excuse of catching the Golden State Killer as justification for storing and using the related genetic information of masses of unconsenting individuals.

      He’s also dipped several times into making state department propaganda like Smarter Every Day consistently does. Not nearly quite as bad as him yet though.

      And he’s made several videos about failures of capitalism, wherein he very obviously refuses to identify it as the problem. Like the one about planned obsolescence or leaded gasoline and another I’m forgetting.

      • arudesalad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’ve watched his leaded gasoline video, capitalism doesn’t seem like something he would need to bring up? Unless I’m not remembering the video correctly, the cause of the problems aren’t something he goes into

        • xionzui@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m not really sure it was just semantics. He was technically correct the light would get some power right away, but the thing everyone would understand when hearing the main assertion, i.e. the light is fully lit and the circuit is in its relatively steady, final state, is very much not true.